Ugh ... they're at it again ... new AWB a comin'

This is a discussion on Ugh ... they're at it again ... new AWB a comin' within the The Second Amendment & Gun Legislation Discussion forums, part of the Related Topics category; Originally Posted by SIXTO
I know this is a little off topic, but if they come to get our guns, who are they going to ...

Well all you guys that are in the service or are an officer, you need to try to convince your fellow men to not follow that order when it comes. There is absolutely NO reason for people in this country to be disarmed.

The damn people who did these shootings, especially the guy who used the AK, could have used ANY gun for this shooting. And it would have been just as deadly. Not to take the shootings of the 4 people he killed lightly, but c'mon... he killed 4 people, almost ANY gun could have done that without reloading. Even though this guy had an AK, he didn't spray bullets out of it. A damn shotgun with slugs or buckshot would have been just as effective. Even without an extended mag most shotguns will hold 4-5 shots. That's plenty enough to kill a few people.

So this "and for other reasons"BS that's on this bill, it will be used to attack a lot more of our guns. We have not remained free from tyranny all these years by having single shot weapons. they illegally took away easy access to machine guns, now they are going to take away access to any gun that can fire more than 1 shot without having to be reloaded.

I see all these people online talking about, "they can take my guns, but they'll have to take the lead first". I wonder how many are dead serious about that. When are we as gun owners going to actually make a stand against this type of stuff? We are on a downward spiral with gun ownership if this bill passes into law. The day our high capacity weapons are permanently taken away from us, is the day that all of our freedoms are in serious danger.

These moron politicians have hunters believing that they won't go after their hunting weapons.. so it's OK to ban assault rifles and pistols with over 10 round magazines. As long as you can still hunt, then it's OK. Yeah, well have fun hunting! Your other rights will start to erode once those single shot hunting rifles and shotguns aren't even capable of defending against a group of 2 people. The 2nd amendment is not about hunting. Why don't some hunters understand this? Do they not care about the freedoms they enjoy?

And they are truly stupid if they believe a vast majority of their hunting weapons won't one day be banned. Because guess what? Once they take away our assault rifles.. instead of taking 1-2 shots to kill someone with an AK, people will be doing it with a remington 700 bolt action. When that begins, the same outcry will be.. "these weapons are very powerful and deadly and do not need to be in the hands of people. We need to get them off the streets because too many murders happen with them." This mentality will continue until all guns are gone. I don't understand how hunters and some gun owners turn a blind eye to finding out the truth on these gun control measures.

My father owns guns, rarely shoots them. But ALL he cares about is protecting things with his job, and his ability to have medication paid for. He votes democrat no matter what. And it's all based on what his Union spews out. He sits and says.. nobody wants to take the guns away from the people.. it won't happen. WAKE UP! It's been happening around the country for a while now. One type of gun years ago, another type of gun yesterday, tomorrow will be another type of gun. This city will ban certain weapons, another city will ban some other weapons. They will not stop until guns are gone. I don't care if that's 200 years from now. We owe it to future generations to protect our gun rights at all costs. Yet we never do. People talk big, but we let the govt come in and take them.

Gun owners need to form in large groups and stand up to the govt. Not just by joining the NRA or GOA or contacting our senators. We need to make a physical stand. Our founding fathers would be ashamed at how little we truly defend our rights.

I don't know about any of you, but I'd actually be more scared of someone pointing a 300 win mag my way, than a shotgun or an AR, or even an AK. It's much more lethal when you think about it. So big deal, it only holds 3-4 rounds and you have to work it by bolt action. You get hit by one of those, you probably stand less of a chance of surviving it than shots from the other guns.

I honestly don't want to make light of the situation that happened in these shootings. But lets just be thankful that in the mall shooting this guy didn't use buckshot or slugs. But we all know the guy with the AK used "armor piercing rounds". Because any high velocity full metal jacket round is armor piercing to morons.

But I suppose, on the other hand.. the fact that this kid used a shotgun, which appears to have been loaded with birdshot.. an obviously less lethal round for humans compared to buckshot or slugs.. This will provide much more fuel for their "and for other reasons" addition. His shotgun held at most.. what.. 9 rounds? that is depending on model of gun and whether it had a mag extension. But even if it had no extension and only held 4 rounds.. that is 3 rounds too many and causes more people to die. So, "and for other reasons" becomes shotguns and rifles that hold more than 1 round at a time.

In answer to Sixto's question, the California Highway Patrol seems like a likely department based on their recent experience (training) in New Orleans, but only so long as they know that there are only little old ladies inside.
In all seriousness, there are a lot of good people in the department, one of whom is one of my closest friends. That being said, the department sadly has established itself as willing to accept an illegal order and carry it out with little, if any, apparent concern as to the legality of the order.
In regards to the original topic, I guess we'll have to see if the new members of Congress, the bulk of which ran on pro-second amendment campaigns, will be able to stand up to their anti-gun leadership.

I have spent almost all of my adult life in the military and as an LEO. I can say without a doubt that far more than the majority of us would not do this, and in fact would be more likely to defend the 2a. This goes for the ground pounders on up the food chain. I am sure there would be a number that would be willing to go door to door, but the other half would take care of that pretty quickly if it came down to it.
The worse thing the commi's in D.C. could do is to squeeze out ammo and parts.

"I do solemnly swear that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion, and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God. This oath is mandated by Article VI of the Constitution and its text is set by statute (5 U.S.C., Sec. 3331). "

I have spent almost all of my adult life in the military and as an LEO. I can say without a doubt that far more than the majority of us would not do this, and in fact would be more likely to defend the 2a.

That's good to hear, but I have often wondered, those that would go all out to carry out the order, how many times will they enter a house, just like their parents, or brothers, or sisters, or their own child’s, and be forced to kill one or more of the occupants, just like their parents, or brother, or sister, or their own child, before they begin to wonder if they could possible be wrong?

I think of it as a tide, that flows in two directions, the question is, what will it take to get the tide to flow back out, how long, how many people killed, before the majority of the military, mainly the bigwigs to realize that the order is wrong.

I guess that also begs another question, before the order gets to the ground pounders, how do the Generals feel about the 2A, and how many of then would "stop the buck right here".

"fundamental principle of American law that a government and its agents are under no general duty to provide public services, such as police protection, to any individual citizen." [Warren v. District of Columbia,(D.C. Ct. of Ap., 1981)]
If I have to explain it, you wouldn't understand

Eh, I wouldn't say it's the end just yet. Just some bimbo in NY introducing a stupid bill. No cosponsors yet, and it's still in committee where it's likely to die. Granted it might not, and I will be contacting my representatives about it, but I don't think it's quite the end just yet.

The damn people who did these shootings, especially the guy who used the AK, could have used ANY gun for this shooting.

He could have used a machete, it is the weapon of choice in other countries where there is "happy-day, sunshine & lollipop" weapons bans... I've seen it, and not just in Africa, the owner of my local pool hall in Canada had to parry a machete with a poolstick... local drug dealers tried to take off his girlfriends head in the parking lot.

In Salt Lake City, a young man opened fire in a crowded mall, killing more than 10 individuals. It appears the shooter was not mentally stable and police are still investigating how he obtained the weapons

Last I saw there were 5 dead, and I think i remember reaind he had a pump-action, which was not covered by the previoud ban.

I have again introduced legislation to permanently ban assault weapons. These weapons have no practical use. They are not used by hunters for sport or by individuals for self-defense.

Who says they aren't used for self defense in some people's homes? If I could hunt deer with my WASR in Ohio, I'd seriously consider it, its ballistically about the same as my .30-30 (which I also can't use).

This congresswoman needs to go read the FBI UCR data, and she would see that the previous AWB had no real effect on homicide and other violent crime rates.